Murphy is really doing the Trenton Two Step, dancing around this. Let’s see if he ball peens his staff phones and bleach bits everything after being subpoenaed to hand over communication with his staff over what and when he knew about the allegations.

K-Lo2 wrote:Do criminal defendants deserve different rights depending on the charge? That sounds like what I'm hearing.

Think you need to separate things:1. Is the law constitutional?2. Does the accused rights change if they are in breach of such a law?

For example, sovereign citizens/travelers believe it's unconstitutional to require license and proof of insurance when operating a vehicle. Are their rights being violated if they're charged with doing so? The prosecution need only prove they broke the law. If the law is badly crafted, it may get tossed by a higher court.

Defendants rights generally don't change. Though rules of evidence can change depending on the charge - as is the case with rape shield laws. And arguably that leads to charge-dependant rights.

bodhipooh wrote:... but your suggestions are outlandish and your proposed solutions unworkable and will never see the light of day.

...

And you Bodipooh seem more interested in defending the rights of rapists with empty rhetoric, than engaging in a constructive debate. Think I'm done responding to you.

Sure, that is EXACTLY what I am doing. You claim to want to engage in a constructive debate, but your reaction says otherwise: the moment the logic fault in your stand is pointed out, you get up in a huff, stomp your feet and scream "I am going home and taking my marbles with me".

Nobody is defending the rights of rapists, but those who seek to weaken the legal protections of the accused in the name of fairness do so out of a myopic view. Our system may not be perfect, but it really seeks to strive for fairness and impartiality.

So, go ahead and walk way huffing and puffing but, if you truly want to engage in a constructive debate, you have to be willing to listen to all viewpoints and be willing to accept when you are wrong, or mistaken. You have done none of that.

If you take a car without documented evidence of the owner's permission, you can be charged and convicted of theft. Irrespective of whether you claim the owner gave you verbal consent. How is this different?

You are really grasping at straws here... if you are caught with someone else's property it is 100% on you to demonstrate you have permission to have said property on/with you. There is a tangible asset for which you must be able to account. So, of course you have to have provable consent/proof that is OK for you to have that property.

The issue of consent is not to be dismissed, but your suggestions are outlandish and your proposed solutions unworkable and will never see the light of day.

Quote:

And there are also plenty of laws where presumption of innocence is diluted. Existing rape shield laws being an obvious example.

You obviously do not know or understand what a rape shield law is, or entails. It does not, in any way, dilute the presumption of innocence. What those laws do is prevent attacks against the character of the accuser. The accused is still presumed innocent and proving his/her culpability is still the responsibility of the prosecution, while the rape shield laws prevent the defense from trying to get off the accuser by shifting blame to the victim.

The tech will come - but not with over-engineered and intrusive solutions like Legalfling. (Yet another absurd use of Blockchain).

Siri, Alexa and Google could have standard sets of voice-enabled personal security apps/skills, backed with AI, that can record consent/non-consent, securely record and store events - that could be used as evidence in a prosecution, alert local police, etc. Those apps could be extended to general personal security apps to provide protection against any personal crime (or unreasonable charges for that matter).

Start small, then build on that. Getting people to record a text conversation would be a great improvement. "Fancy a shag?"."Yes/no".

K-Lo2 wrote:So married/engaged/living together couples would have to sign off each time? That's going to work out really well.

Was expecting this question - an area that needs some thought from lawmakers. Likely excluded by default unless explicitly documented otherwise. It's conceivable that status needs to change in domestic violence situations - perhaps by court order. It's also the sort of thing that could end up in a pre-nup and decided by the couple themselves. Shouldn't exclude protections under a law just because people live under the same roof.

You picked a rare and mostly absurd example as a counterpoint. I'm not a lawmaker - so, no, I haven't considered every edge case. But the same principle could apply. If there's any risk of a rape allegation - male or female on female or male - those parties should be obligated to prove consent to avoid prosecution. Judges and juries can overturn the absurd entrapment cases and help shape the law. Like they do with every other law.

Just because you consider it a rare and/or absurd example, it doesn't make it so. This is PRECISELY why our legal system is predicated on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is an extension of the idea that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be unfairly incarcerated. The burden of proof is high, and on the accusing party, because that is the only way to more or less ensure that innocent people are not unfairly convicted.

As I said in my original reply to you, thankfully we will never see your idea become reality. It would never pass muster, because it lacks common sense, it runs contrary to our established system of law, and the courts would never uphold such a law.

If you take a car without documented evidence of the owner's permission, you can be charged and convicted of theft. Irrespective of whether you claim the owner gave you verbal consent. How is this different?

And there are also plenty of laws where presumption of innocence is diluted. Existing rape shield laws being an obvious example.

You picked a rare and mostly absurd example as a counterpoint. I'm not a lawmaker - so, no, I haven't considered every edge case. But the same principle could apply. If there's any risk of a rape allegation - male or female on female or male - those parties should be obligated to prove consent to avoid prosecution. Judges and juries can overturn the absurd entrapment cases and help shape the law. Like they do with every other law.

Just because you consider it a rare and/or absurd example, it doesn't make it so. This is PRECISELY why our legal system is predicated on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is an extension of the idea that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be unfairly incarcerated. The burden of proof is high, and on the accusing party, because that is the only way to more or less ensure that innocent people are not unfairly convicted.

As I said in my original reply to you, thankfully we will never see your idea become reality. It would never pass muster, because it lacks common sense, it runs contrary to our established system of law, and the courts would never uphold such a law.

You picked a rare and mostly absurd example as a counterpoint. I'm not a lawmaker - so, no, I haven't considered every edge case. But the same principle could apply. If there's any risk of a rape allegation - male or female on female or male - those parties should be obligated to prove consent to avoid prosecution. Judges and juries can overturn the absurd entrapment cases and help shape the law. Like they do with every other law.

Personally, I think that the law should be changed. Proof of sexual interaction without proof of consent should be grounds for a conviction.

That’s a CRAZY idea. Thankfully, it will never come to pass.

Something like this is needed to shift the balance of protection from perp to victim. What's crazy is that out of every 1000 rapes, 995 rapists walk free. And there are close to 1/2 million sexual assaults in the US every year. Victims are getting little to no protection under the existing system.

...and carrying condoms was considered crazy by many before aids.

(I'd agree it would be crazy to introduce such a law retroactively.)

@Monroe - Nope. No joke.

Obviously, you have not thought this through properly. The reason we have a "innocent until proven guilty" system is precisely because the opposite is too easy to game or abuse.

If your idea was made law (proof of sexual interaction without proof of consent would be grounds for conviction) it could be used by a man, or a woman, to entrap and send to jail any number of people. I could go to a bar tonight, get laid, then go to the local precinct in the morning and claim some woman coaxed me into sex (I would have the proof) and she wouldn’t have any proof of consent and would simply get sent to jail.

You really ought to take a minute to really think through what you are suggesting.

Personally, I think that the law should be changed. Proof of sexual interaction without proof of consent should be grounds for a conviction.

That’s a CRAZY idea. Thankfully, it will never come to pass.

Something like this is needed to shift the balance of protection from perp to victim. What's crazy is that out of every 1000 rapes, 995 rapists walk free. And there are close to 1/2 million sexual assaults in the US every year. Victims are getting little to no protection under the existing system.

jerseymom wrote:Thank you for the question. Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Sexual assault needs to stop being a "man vs. woman" issue. It's a perpetrator vs. victim issue. Victims need to feel comfortable reporting a crime - but in a case of a sexual assault, it's just not that easy. It's not the laws that need changing, per se, it's the stigma and denial that happens to victims by themselves, their peers, employers, coworkers, teachers, religious leaders and families that needs to be changed. There's a lot that happens between the time an assault takes place to the time that it's reported - we need to work on that as a society.

2. Sexual assault needs to be adjudicated in a court of law - not in a sensationalist media event or in hearings. There is a procedure to follow, laws and rules of evidence. The perp, male or female, is innocent until proven guilty. That's the U.S. justice system, like it or not.

3. I cannot comment with certainty on this case in particular. But Hudson County never disappoints and often stinks. Things are covered up here at an alarming rate by people with just a little bit of power. Katie seems to have followed protocol and does make a striking allegation. She has risked enormously to put herself in the front of a media storm. I admire her tenacity and courage and really hope she gets her legitimate day in court.

4. Moving forward - talk to your children, tell them your own stories (most of us likely are or know someone who is a victim of some kind of unwanted sexual comment, groping, or assault - most often by someone we know). Role play, create a plan, a code word, open up the dialogue to your sons and daughters about what is right and wrong and empower them with tools for situations where they could become a victim. Create a loving environment where open dialogue is welcome and your kids know they have a safe harbor in a storm.

Just my two cents.

Thanks. Absolutely agree with all your points. Here are the two issues I'm trying to wrap my head around.

1. When a rape involves one person's word against the other. A high percentage of rapes involve 2 people with no witnesses as in this case. The legal system offers little in the way of justice if the prosecutor feels they won't win a case.2. The flip side - is when someone is accused of rape that they didn't commit. Their professional career can be destroyed if it's made public.

My advice to a son would be to get some form of documented consent - paper, email, text, voicemail or recording, etc - before engaging in any sexual activity. My advice to a daughter would be to document the non-consent at the time or as soon as possible using similar means.

Personally, I think that the law should be changed. Proof of sexual interaction without proof of consent should be grounds for a conviction. Granted - consent could be forced - but there are ways to tackle that (preset codewords, etc).

Spartacus didn’t shut up about Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, 40 years later with no corroboration or hospital/prosecutor timeline. He’s talked more about TBone than this woman. #metoo my ass when it’s about a Democratic coverup.

1. Sexual assault needs to stop being a "man vs. woman" issue. It's a perpetrator vs. victim issue. Victims need to feel comfortable reporting a crime - but in a case of a sexual assault, it's just not that easy. It's not the laws that need changing, per se, it's the stigma and denial that happens to victims by themselves, their peers, employers, coworkers, teachers, religious leaders and families that needs to be changed. There's a lot that happens between the time an assault takes place to the time that it's reported - we need to work on that as a society.

2. Sexual assault needs to be adjudicated in a court of law - not in a sensationalist media event or in hearings. There is a procedure to follow, laws and rules of evidence. The perp, male or female, is innocent until proven guilty. That's the U.S. justice system, like it or not.

3. I cannot comment with certainty on this case in particular. But Hudson County never disappoints and often stinks. Things are covered up here at an alarming rate by people with just a little bit of power. Katie seems to have followed protocol and does make a striking allegation. She has risked enormously to put herself in the front of a media storm. I admire her tenacity and courage and really hope she gets her legitimate day in court.

4. Moving forward - talk to your children, tell them your own stories (most of us likely are or know someone who is a victim of some kind of unwanted sexual comment, groping, or assault - most often by someone we know). Role play, create a plan, a code word, open up the dialogue to your sons and daughters about what is right and wrong and empower them with tools for situations where they could become a victim. Create a loving environment where open dialogue is welcome and your kids know they have a safe harbor in a storm.

Phil Murphy may be called to testify before lawmakers investigating handling of sex assault allegations

Lawmakers investigating Katie Brennan’s allegations that the Murphy administration kept an accused rapist on as a senior staffer said Tuesday they may call the governor to testify.

Brennan’s hours-long testimony enmeshed half a dozen senior campaign, transition and administration officials who Brennan said she made aware of the allegations in the year and a half since she says she was raped by Albert J. Alvarez, who resigned in October as chief of staff to the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.

New Jersey lawmakers will begin scrutinizing the first scandal of Gov. Phil Murphy’s young administration Tuesday, as the senior official accusing a former fellow top staffer of rape testifies in public.

In what promises to be a dramatic day at the Statehouse, a special legislative committee of mostly women will hear from Katie Brennan, chief of staff to the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency, who has said she was raped during Murphy’s campaign for governor by a top aide.

Brennan has said she went public with her allegations only after prosecutors declined to press charges and members of Murphy’s inner circle failed to take action.

Not to diminish the prosecutor's contribution to this abomination, but she gets her marching orders from the top. There is a chain of command - and she's not near the top. She's a convenient fall-gal, but she ain't your "man." There were a lot of people involved in this - and Ms. Brennan just blew the whistle on the whole gang. Good for her. Her courage is extraordinary as she knows the landscape very, very well. She's the victim twice - and I hope she gets her full, due justice at the end of the day.